Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 25 March 2010 08:08

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Al 1953 wrote on 24/03/2010 :
I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in my
new house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper than
gas heating after they build the new nuclear power stations. I think
that's what happened in France, isn't it?
You will be looking at a lead time of 10 to 15 years before any new
nuclear stations were to come on line and it will take many of them,
before they make any difference to the methods of generation.
No.

That is wrong. One nuclear power station more would probably out perform
all the installed base of windmills. 30 nuclear power stations would
generate all the current electricity we use. 100 would generate enough
energy to run all the non-electrical stuff off electricity. Including
transport.

Not forgetting the infrastructure upgrades though...


No. Thats why I quoted £3000 a KW rather than the base cost which is
more like £2000 a Kw for actual real life standard nuclear stations
these days.

Wind is far worse, because you have to size for peak loads three times
higher than the average, due to their lousy load factors. And by
definition they are always sited away from population centres that use
the power.





The cost is about £3000 per kilowatt capital outlay over 60 years.

Which means that I personally, could e.g. theoretically pay £10,000 to a
nuclear company for all the electricity I will ever need in my life.
A deal which I would instantly take up should it ever be offered.

I would too.

To totally electrify the country is probably £3000 per head. Maybe
£5000. That's assuming electric cars, and the infrastructure to make
them work effectively, etc as well as build nuke sets.

Which would you rather do? spend £5000 on traffic wardens, drop in
Afro-Caribbean lesbian day care centers, Duck islands, Liars for Hire,
affordable homes for thieving pikey *******s, or free electricity and
fuel for the rest of your life?

Not forgetting that our gross national external debt (public and private) is
now around 9x10^12 US dollars (Wikipedia) second only to the USA in absolute
value and the worst per capita ($150k). What's another few thousand each to
sort out two massive looming problems (energy and CO2)...



Straw, camels back..

But like I said, the government doesn't need to fund this: ALL they have
to do is allow planning and whatever sweeteners are required for people
who live near them, and sign a binding contract on decommissioning, so
the costs are fixed in advance, and let private finance do what it does
best. Take a long term medium risk medium return gamble.

Oh, and stop subsidised windmills, and tax carbon fuels no matter what
they are used for.

It was the government's involvement in nuclear power in the first place
that lead to things like Windscale.

Keep the *******s out. They can **** anything up.

If the true environmental cost of burning fossil fuels means its 15p a
Kwh, charge it, and use the money to set up a fund to deal wit the
damage. Of course they'd steal it to pay back the debts owed to the
sovereign gilt holders ..